Cap has a life outside of the Avengers in the present that is much more compelling than a period piece sequel would be. He has his own cast of characters that fans love, and would want to see in sequels; the period piece lacks that cast.

I wouldn't kill off Cap. I would actually kill off Sharon Carter, and have Cap retire due to that (movie cap doesn't have to be like comic cap, who would keep on being Cap just because.) Then I would have Bucky take over.

I would like to see both happen, but I think doing Cap solos would be easier. I say do Avengers and then a Cap sequel. Then do IM3, and maybe Thor 2 if possible or BO permitting. Then do Avengers 2. Then do Cap 3, Thor 3, and Avengers 3 last and have that be the finale for the Avengers film-verse for now.

If done right, The Avengers should be Captain America 2, featuring the other guys. It should be his story, adapting to a new world. I really don't see a second Avengers movie being made, so solo sequels all the way.

I agree Avengers should slant more toward Cap. But, I'd like to see a solo Cap 2 as well

Who doesn't want to see Zemo II be the villain of a Cap sequel? I'd also like to see them do Cap being exiled from the US in a film. I would like to have seen the Super Soldier serum is killing Cap plotline, but IM2 kind of makes that a rehash of another comic film.

I'm kinda worried about the drop off solo movies will have in light of Avengers. It's inevitable but still, even IM3 may have an issue. The Avengers movie, or the SHIELD movie almost need to be setups in of itself, just for the sake of hinting at or deliberately leaving material for Cap sequels. Maybe we will need a Red Skull "Mwwwwhahahaha" after credit scene or something. Avengers shouldn't be a climax by any stretch. Whatever the main threat is in the movie needs to be neutralized, but I feel we also need some setups for future Cap villains if they intend to make sequels. I actually have a feeling the SHIELD movie SLJ was talking about may end up featuring Cap regardless just to give the movie a true presence.

I'm kinda worried about the drop off solo movies will have in light of Avengers. It's inevitable but still, even IM3 may have an issue. The Avengers movie, or the SHIELD movie almost need to be setups in of itself, just for the sake of hinting at or deliberately leaving material for Cap sequels. Maybe we will need a Red Skull "Mwwwwhahahaha" after credit scene or something. Avengers shouldn't be a climax by any stretch. Whatever the main threat is in the movie needs to be neutralized, but I feel we also need some setups for future Cap villains if they intend to make sequels. I actually have a feeling the SHIELD movie SLJ was talking about may end up featuring Cap regardless just to give the movie a true presence.

Marvel is in a weird place after avengers; they don't really have any A-list properties left to unveil...which leaves me with a feeling that they're hoping to make Thor, Cap, and Avengers trilogies...they at least need to plan 1 big tentpole for the next 10 years...and to be honest, none of the other movies have that 400-500 million dollar potential.

This is why Marvel is talking IM3 in 2013. I agree with Kang, until they get the rights to FF and such back, all they have for major blockbusters is Avenger, Cap, Thor, Hulk, and IM. Maybe Dr. Strange could be, too. But, that's really it. They'll have to build off those 4 solo franchises and Avengers until they at least get FF back (or if).

I think BP, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Heroes for Hire, etc will go the way of DC's second string guns. The company will talk but nothing will happen for years. It's just not tentpole material and I doubt Disney is reverting to C-list characters that can't even hold a prime summer slot once the distribution deal reverts back in house. If Thor and Cap flop, even an Avengers trilogy is in jeopardy so that's not a given either. Spiderman will be worthless if Sony milks another trilogy out of him. I also feel X4-6 will inevitably happen under Fox's umbrella, barring these spinoffs being disasters for them (we can only hope). I still think there is tentpole material outside Avengers if they can get back FF. Even Defenders (Namor, SS, Dr. Strange lineup) to keep Hulk involved in the universe without giving him risky solo movies. If not, Marvel could be back to where they were in the mid to late 90's by the end of the decade, proportionally speaking.

I said solo and Avengers sequels together, mainly as a general rule for what Marvel should do with all the Avengers characters, not just Steve. All of those characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Cap, Thor, and even Ant-Man) have their own rich worlds that a huge film like The Avengers can never possibly do justice, so take a page from what Marvel's been doing for years, and just have the main team movie stand alongside the solo movies, and make sure it's all in continuity so we don't have to sit through a rebooted franchise in ten years.

I think BP, Dr. Strange, Luke Cage, Heroes for Hire, etc will go the way of DC's second string guns. The company will talk but nothing will happen for years. It's just not tentpole material and I doubt Disney is reverting to C-list characters that can't even hold a prime summer slot once the distribution deal reverts back in house. If Thor and Cap flop, even an Avengers trilogy is in jeopardy so that's not a given either. Spiderman will be worthless if Sony milks another trilogy out of him. I also feel X4-6 will inevitably happen under Fox's umbrella, barring these spinoffs being disasters for them (we can only hope). I still think there is tentpole material outside Avengers if they can get back FF. Even Defenders (Namor, SS, Dr. Strange lineup) to keep Hulk involved in the universe without giving him risky solo movies. If not, Marvel could be back to where they were in the mid to late 90's by the end of the decade, proportionally speaking.

BP especially; that's been in talks for 18 years. I don't see it happening for at least another 5-10. By then it'll be 25-30 years in the making.

I said solo and Avengers sequels together, mainly as a general rule for what Marvel should do with all the Avengers characters, not just Steve. All of those characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Cap, Thor, and even Ant-Man) have their own rich worlds that a huge film like The Avengers can never possibly do justice, so take a page from what Marvel's been doing for years, and just have the main team movie stand alongside the solo movies, and make sure it's all in continuity so we don't have to sit through a rebooted franchise in ten years.

This is what I'm saying...if a character can hold down an on-going for 45 years like Cap, Iron Man and Thor have, they're definitely trilogy worthy.

This is what I'm saying...if a character can hold down an on-going for 45 years like Cap, Iron Man and Thor have, they're definitely trilogy worthy.

That would be ideal, really. Hulk seems like a tough character to build a franchise around, even if his last movie was great. I think Marvel Studios just needs to keep applying the formula they've been using to keep these characters fresh from movie-to-movie, and to keep them as true to their origins as they possibly can be.

The chances of Thor/Cap/Hulk all getting sequels are virtually nil if you ask me. Ima say Branagh would do one sequel max if the first one is a hit. I think Johnston will be run out the door when all is said and done... by fans and Marvel. He'll probably go back to JP4 or whatever the hell Spielberg isn't doing, and stay in that shadow. Maybe it's just me, but Marvel is drinking Koolade if they think they are going to exercise the 5-9 film options on these actors/characters.

I really don't see Edward Norton doing more than what his current contract might stipulate, but I think Sam Jackson, RDJ, and Chris Evans would most likely be in it for the long haul. And if not, Marvel obviously doesn't have a problem with replacing a major character mid-stream.

I think that Johnson will be the ruin to cap sequels since he is bad in making decent films, see what happened to the wolfman and Jurassic Park III.
But the director od Iron man said that Avengers is not Iron man 3 it is Avengers 1#, and Iron man 3 is iron man 3# so cap america 2 is not the Avengers, he said it´s like in the comics, they have some solo stories and then they have a team up adventure, it is as simple as that, and if they reach the trilogy tipe i would like if they even made more movies with the same characters, trilogys seems an excuse for them to end the story and then do crappy remakes.

To be fair, Jurassic Park was doomed to fail from the beginning. It was just a rehashing of the first two movies, but with shinier, newer breeds of dinosaurs. I have faith in Johnson as a director, especially with a project like Captain America that will be a period piece that will have some level of realism to it.

Johnson is not that good with period pieces, actualy there was a continuity problem with the wolfman in which it is featured a bridge from england, first seen being constructed, and moments later it appears already constructed, while in real life it took some more years for its construction to be concluded. I don´t remember the bridge´s name, but i remember seeing and reading this.
This shows that Johnson likes period pieces but is not very good making them.

Johnson is not that good with period pieces, actualy there was a continuity problem with the wolfman in which it is featured a bridge from england, first seen being constructed, and moments later it appears already constructed, while in real life it took some more years for its construction to be concluded. I don´t remember the bridge´s name, but i remember seeing and reading this.This shows that Johnson likes period pieces but is not very good making them.

That one mistake does not make him "not very good at making them". Thats a continuity problem.It is lazy editing, or writing or both. It happens in all movies. In IM2 Rockwell's glasses are hanging on to his back after he gets slammed into the table near the end of the film and when he gets up, there on top of his head. It tends to be lazy editing. Sure, the bridge thing is bigger, and it certainly isn't good, but that alone does not prove he's not good at making period pieces.

As for the poll, I think they need to make solo sequels and Avengers sequels. Not just for Cap, but for Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor. I really feel like Hulk has what it takes to be a major blockbuster, they just need him to be more of a hero. TIH defiantly touched on that by adding a real villain. IMO, TIH is one of Marvel's best films, but I think one of the reason's the Hulk character hasn't caught on is that both films, have focused on the Army vs Hulk/Fugitive Banner aspect more than the heroism of the Hulk. I'm not saying they need to scratch the fugitive stuff, because thats a major part of the character, but I think they could have a big hit if they made a Hulk film that focused more on Hulk being the "hero" part of "anti-Hero". So far HULK and the first 3 acts of TIH focused on the "anti" part of "anti-hero".

__________________"If you figure a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let the rest of us know, will you? For you'd be the first person in the history of the world."
-LANCASTER DODD

Johnson is not that good with period pieces, actualy there was a continuity problem with the wolfman in which it is featured a bridge from england, first seen being constructed, and moments later it appears already constructed, while in real life it took some more years for its construction to be concluded. I don´t remember the bridge´s name, but i remember seeing and reading this.
This shows that Johnson likes period pieces but is not very good making them.

If you watch October Sky, that's the kind of atmosphere I'm assuming Johnson will be bringing to the table. I haven't seen Wolfman yet, but I'm assuming that maybe the genre of the movie might have taken some precedence over the tone and visuals a little bit. Just as Cap will probably be a little over the top, because it's a superhero movie, I can guess that Wolfman had its moments too, because it was a horror movie about a werewolf.